Only 1-3% of cases go to trial, says former District Attorney, Matthew Mangino.
By Deepak Chitnis
WASHINGTON, DC: As the Devyani Khobragade affair rages on, Preet Bharara, the Attorney General for the Southern District of New York, has said the US is trying to negotiate a plea bargain, to which Khobragade has not responded, before the indictment date arrives, which could be over a month away on February 12, or just five days away on January 13.
Plea bargains are nothing new in the US judicial system, and are often times used as a way to get around a long and costly trial, as well as to incentivize the defendant into confessing their guilt and aiding the government (in the case of federal trials) in exchange for a lower prison term. This helps the government, too, since the less time a person spends behind bars, the lower the number of tax dollars that have to be spent on them.
In a newly released column written for The Crime Report, Matthew T. Mangino argues that plea bargains have, in fact, become the preferred way to handle just about every type of criminal case in the US, with only about 1% of cases actually ending in convictions at trial, in the hands of juries.
Mangino is an adjunct professor at La Roche College in Pittsburgh, and a former District Attorney in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. In his column, entitled “How Plea Bargains Are Making Jury Trials Obsolete,” Mangino says that plea bargains are essentially destroying the concept of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” allowing prosecutors to tantalize potentially innocent people into admitting a degree of guilt since their penalty if proven guilty at trial would be far more severe.
“An insignificant number of offenders heading off to state or federal prison were proven guilty of anything,” says Mangin. “Sure, those defendants acknowledged their guilt by choosing to enter a guilty plea; but shouldn’t the most revered legal system in the world provide something more in terms of protection for those accused of a crime? For 97 out of 100 people accused of a crime in federal court, all that has been proven against them is that a crime has been committed and that they “probably” committed it.”
What does this mean for Khobragade? Basically, that even if she is innocent of the charges brought against her, she may be encouraged into entering a plea deal if the evidence against her proves too overwhelming for a defense team to fight against. Sure, the US says that all criminals are “innocent until proven guilty,” and there have been several high-profile cases where seemingly insurmountable evidence went to trial and the defendant got acquitted – O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony, and George Zimmerman spring to mind – but the diplomatic facet of this case presents its own complications.
Mainly, that the US and India will want to put this behind themselves as quickly as possible. Although India has stated that it will not return to “business as usual” with the US unless Khobragade is unequivocally cleared of charges and the US issues an apology, the fact that plea bargains are being discussed, could be taken as a sign that the State Department is willing to levy a reduced punishment on Khobragade in exchange for keeping India’s friendship.
Will it happen? Both countries need each other: The US needs India as an ally in a difficult region of the world, while India needs the US as a trade and commerce partner for its growing economy, among other things.
This Monday will be an important checkpoint in the ongoing proceedings; until then, the back-and-forth between the two countries will continue behind closed doors while the rest of world watches on.
To contact the author, email to deepakchitnis@americanbazaaronline.com